On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:48:26 UTC, FeepingCreature
wrote:
That's hilarious! I'm happy you found it.
Me too! Thanks for the support.
(PS I've already reformatted that drive to ext4.)
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 16:22:52 UTC, harakim wrote:
On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 11:05:36 UTC, FeepingCreature
wrote:
Can you print some of the wrong sizes? D's DirEntry iteration
code just calls `FindFirstFileW`/`FindNextFileW`, so this
*shouldn't* be a D-specific issue, and it should b
On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 11:05:36 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
Can you print some of the wrong sizes? D's DirEntry iteration
code just calls `FindFirstFileW`/`FindNextFileW`, so this
*shouldn't* be a D-specific issue, and it should be possible to
reproduce this in C.
Thanks for the suggest
On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 11:05:36 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
Can you print some of the wrong sizes? D's DirEntry iteration
code just calls `FindFirstFileW`/`FindNextFileW`, so this
*shouldn't* be a D-specific issue, and it should be possible to
reproduce this in C.
Yes! I will get that i
On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 07:52:28 UTC, harakim wrote:
I have been doing some backups and I wrote a utility that
determines if files are an exact match. As a shortcut, I check
the file size. So far so good on this with millions of files
until I found something odd: getSize() and DirEntry&#
I have been doing some backups and I wrote a utility that
determines if files are an exact match. As a shortcut, I check
the file size. So far so good on this with millions of files
until I found something odd: getSize() and DirEntry's .size are
producing different values.
This i
On 5/27/22 9:40 AM, Alexander Zhirov wrote:
I'm trying to compile a file that weighs 3 kilobytes. I'm also linking a
self-written dynamic library. I don't understand why the resulting
executable file is so huge? After all, all libraries are present:
```sh
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.3M May 27 13:
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 13:40:25 UTC, Alexander Zhirov wrote:
I'm trying to compile a file that weighs 3 kilobytes. I'm also
linking a self-written dynamic library. I don't understand why
the resulting executable file is so huge?
I just switched from `32-bit` to 64 bit, but the '64' bit pro
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 13:40:25 UTC, Alexander Zhirov wrote:
I'm trying to compile a file that weighs 3 kilobytes. I'm also
linking a self-written dynamic library. I don't understand why
the resulting executable file is so huge? After all, all
libraries are present:
I'd take a look with
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 13:40:25 UTC, Alexander Zhirov wrote:
I'm trying to compile a file that weighs 3 kilobytes. I'm also
linking a self-written dynamic library. I don't understand why
the resulting executable file is so huge? After all, all
libraries are present:
[...]
I did a similar
I'm trying to compile a file that weighs 3 kilobytes. I'm also
linking a self-written dynamic library. I don't understand why
the resulting executable file is so huge? After all, all
libraries are present:
```sh
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.3M May 27 13:39 app
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.9K May 27 12
On 8/28/2014 1:24 AM, Israel wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:23:57 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
But, how would i configure dub and my dub.json to automatically
use those LDC switches if it isnt automatically built into dub?
You can pass compiler-specific flags by adding a "dflags" entry
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 16:24:23 UTC, Israel wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:23:57 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
You could try using LDC. The latest version 0.14.0 already
uses --gc-sections automatically. (But it is based on DMD
2.065, so you cannot (yet) use all of the newest feat
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:23:57 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:16:37 UTC, Israel wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:41:51 UTC, Messenger wrote:
Conjecture: your binary has its imports statically linked in,
and your linker doesn't remove unused code (-
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:16:37 UTC, Israel wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:41:51 UTC, Messenger wrote:
Conjecture: your binary has its imports statically linked in,
and your linker doesn't remove unused code (--gc-sections).
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=879
I
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:41:51 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 23:36:44 UTC, Israel wrote:
I wasnt paying any attention to the file size of my binaries
when
i started using D.
My first program is simple and compiles at 486kb, which
honestly,
is kind of absurd
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 23:36:44 UTC, Israel wrote:
I wasnt paying any attention to the file size of my binaries
when
i started using D.
My first program is simple and compiles at 486kb, which
honestly,
is kind of absurd but anyways, after i start adding other
imports
it ran all the
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 23:36:44 UTC, Israel wrote:
I wasnt paying any attention to the file size of my binaries
when
i started using D.
My first program is simple and compiles at 486kb, which
honestly,
is kind of absurd but anyways, after i start adding other
imports
it ran all the
I wasnt paying any attention to the file size of my binaries when
i started using D.
My first program is simple and compiles at 486kb, which honestly,
is kind of absurd but anyways, after i start adding other imports
it ran all the way up to 4.5mb.
what i want to ask is, what exactly is
On 28.07.2011 00:30, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 28.07.2011 2:03, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 23:00, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 21:16, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application ta
On 28.07.2011 2:03, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 23:00, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 21:16, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this t
On 27.07.2011 23:00, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 21:16, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way
On 27.07.2011 21:16, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make
optlink generate smaller executables?
On 27.07.2011 23:35, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 20:59, q66 wrote:
== Quote from Dmitry Olshansky (dmitry.o...@gmail.com)'s article
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there i
On 27.07.2011 20:59, q66 wrote:
== Quote from Dmitry Olshansky (dmitry.o...@gmail.com)'s article
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make
optlink generate smalle
== Quote from Dmitry Olshansky (dmitry.o...@gmail.com)'s article
> On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
> > A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
> > great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make
> > optlink generate smaller executables?
> >
> >
On 27.07.2011 13:42, Stephan wrote:
On 27.07.2011 13:26, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 13:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a great
job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make optlink
generate smaller executables?
I could
On 27.07.2011 15:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make
optlink generate smaller executables?
I couldn't find a way to get help on
On 27.07.2011 18:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I've found it interesting how sometimes (not dfl-specific) the first
compiled executable is over a meg in size, but as I add a couple of
hunderd lines of code the executable size shrinks. I guess some kind
of optimization takes place there..
LOL, it sh
I've found it interesting how sometimes (not dfl-specific) the first
compiled executable is over a meg in size, but as I add a couple of
hunderd lines of code the executable size shrinks. I guess some kind
of optimization takes place there..
On 27.07.2011 15:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a
great job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make
optlink generate smaller executables?
I couldn't find a way to get help on the numerous options in optlink,
and the he
On 27.07.2011 13:26, simendsjo wrote:
On 27.07.2011 13:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a great
job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make optlink
generate smaller executables?
I couldn't find a way to get help on the num
On 27.07.2011 13:21, simendsjo wrote:
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a great
job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make optlink
generate smaller executables?
I couldn't find a way to get help on the numerous options in optlink,
and the help
A simple hello world like dfl application takes 1.2mb. Upx does a great
job packing this to 200k, but I wonder if there is a way to make optlink
generate smaller executables?
I couldn't find a way to get help on the numerous options in optlink,
and the help page at digitalmars doesn't list the
34 matches
Mail list logo
